Compromise is the key

[Bobbieaware]

11 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That's the "Catch", isn't it? You invite everyone to the wedding and weed out 95% of it as scraps......l

Many weed themselves out by not being sure to have sufficient oil (spiritua power through the Holy Ghost) in their lamps when the bridegroom unexpectedly arrives at the wedding feast. Isn't this what the Savior taught? Why did the Lord teach the parable of the ten virgins if all who are invited will be worthy to attend the wedding feast?

[provoman]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

A.  Who's Mr. Schultz?

B.  What do your ellipses in your quote "attributed to" him leave out?

Schultz is the individual in the article presented by the OP. You may find the other information in the same article.

The compromise, or the gasoline used to put out the flames, is not inline with what Elder Oaks stated.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That's the "Catch", isn't it? You invite everyone to the wedding and weed out 95% of it as scraps......l

In the parable, one person gets tossed because he didn't respect the wedding itself (didn't dress in the required clothing).  The rest of the guests were the bad as well as the good grabbed off the street without discrimination.

The first group were invited, but refused to come on their own by ignoring the invite or even choosing to kill the Lord's servants who had come to give the invite in person.

There are things to criticize in the scriptures.  Misrepresenting them to do so makes you lose credibility.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That's the "Catch", isn't it? You invite everyone to the wedding and weed out 95% of it as scraps......l

Hardly a catch.
Every organization has rules that must be followed.
Nobody gets to join any organization they want and ignore the rules.
 

Nobody gets to be the special little snowflake who does whatever they want and still gets to be part of the club.

[Atheist Mormon]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Hardly a catch.
Every organization has rules that must be followed.
Nobody gets to join any organization they want and ignore the rules.
Nobody gets to be the special little snowflake who does whatever they want and still gets to be part of the club.

 

Yea.....Except this is a voluntary faith based organization.....you make the rule and you chase them out of the wedding...

Wait a minute...If God was going to eliminate 95% of the humans of his kingdom, why bother to create them in the first place? Compared to God even America is much more humanitarian, just because they are illegal it doesn't cruelly deport 11-13 million aliens.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yea.....Except this is a voluntary faith based organization.....you make the rule and you chase them out of the wedding...

Wait a minute...If God was going to eliminate 95% of the humans of his kingdom, why bother to create them in the first place? Compared to God even America is much more humanitarian, just because they are illegal it doesn't cruelly deport 11-13 million aliens.

God isn't going to eliminate anyone. He is only going to give them a place somewhere within His kingdom, except for those who chose to commit the unpardonable sin and those He still won't eliminate, but will merely cast them completely out of his glory into outer darkness. All the others are going to live somewhere within His glory, thanks to the mercy of Christ's atonement. Either close to Him with bright light or far from Him where the light isn't very bright at all. It all depends upon the laws we are willing to abide by:  "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
John 14:2

"39  All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40  There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42  So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43  It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1 Corinthians 15:39-43"

"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven."
2 Corinthians 12:2

[Guest]

On July 8, 2016 at 0:04 PM, stemelbow said:

Thanks JLHPROF.  I agree with "It is not true that any opposition to same-sex marriage is, ipso facto, hatred toward gays," Scharffs said.

I disagree that compromise is not an option.  Without it, we will all lose. 

How will we all lose? 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yea.....Except this is a voluntary faith based organization.....you make the rule and you chase them out of the wedding...

Wait a minute...If God was going to eliminate 95% of the humans of his kingdom, why bother to create them in the first place? Compared to God even America is much more humanitarian, just because they are illegal it doesn't cruelly deport 11-13 million aliens.

God eliminates nobody.  We eliminate ourselves.  We're not Calvinists.
This is not a reward/punishment system or based on some predestination plan.  It's a system of natural consequence based on agency.

No unclean thing can come into the presence of God.  NOT no unclean thing will be allowed to come into the presence of God.

Basically, you CHOOSE in your agency to do a swan dive off the Empire State building, the results are your choice and you gave up any future claim to agency.
You refuse to abide the law of the Celestial Kingdom, wear the wedding garment, receive the necessary initiation steps, etc, then YOU choose not to enter.
 

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 10:19 PM, Calm said:

Hmmm...in my experience those who are most vocal in a positive way about SSM are also most vocal about plural marriage being a bad thing for the Church, not a revelation, etc.  (not that nonSSM supporters have only good things to say about plural arriage, not even close).  If it does become legal and even included in civil marriage and along with polyamory becomes socially acceptable (with all genders being able to participate in polygamy and ppolyamory, it has a good chance of occurring at a higher rate than SSM), it would be interesting to see how attitudes change in this group with extended exposure to it. If more positive, will that assessment be applied to early church marriage or will there be reasoning found to continue to label that nonrevelatory, etc.

I don't see any inconsistency is supporting the rights of SS couples and also thinking plural marriage should never have been practice in Mormonism.  One is about people's rights, another is a question of revelation.  One can certainly support SSM and also think plural marriage evil.  Indeed one can support SSM and also think Same sex sex is an abomination.  The biggest inconsistency on this issue as it relates to the Church is Church members crowing about traditional marriage to oppose SSM without realizing they compromise their own tradition. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

How will we all lose? 

There's anything resolved when certain parties refuse to compromise.  Without such resolution we're left seeing people fight.  Fighting, contention. enmity is a source of losing in my view.

[hope_for_things]

On 7/8/2016 at 2:54 PM, JLHPROF said:

Polygamy maintains the established purpose in scripture of marriage.  SSM does not.
Polygamy is a different form of marriage.  SSM is a redefinition of marriage from the original.
 

I said "traditional marriage".  Are you saying polygamy should be categorized as traditional marriage?  I don't think the church even makes that claim, but I would be interested if you have evidence to support that the church also considers polygamy to fall into the traditional marriage umbrella.  

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 1:47 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

The church currently exists in a world with the majority of society rejecting it's so called standards and yet it survives. There is no reason that it won't continue to do so in a world that is tolerant of everyone...Mormons not withstanding

edit to add:. It even survives with other adult cohabitation circumstances that it disagrees with such as non married cohabitation and polygamy. There is no reason to assume that it can't survive in a world at embraces SSM

We most certainly all would be better off if we give all credible people a place at the table and let the best ideas emerge as each is fairly considered.  We're worse off when we try to tell others they should never be welcome, particularly when our main motivation to turn people away is fear. 

[hope_for_things]

On 7/8/2016 at 2:56 PM, CV75 said:

Yes, the Church was defending its constitutional religious freedom; the US government was speaking in terms of prohibiting barbarism ("It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856.htm ), and not an “abnormality”—big difference. It is bizarre to represent them as the same.

 

For the purposes of public debate, the Church isn’t calling ssm an “abnormality,” an abomination, a barbarism, or anything of the sort. It is bizarre to represent her as if she does,

 

The Church still is defending religious freedom in principle. With regards to ssm, she speaks in terms of prohibiting its legal practice in jurisdictions where it is being debated, and not where it is already being practiced under law – another big difference. It is bizarre to represent them as the same.

 

 

 

 

The church considers SSM a sin that constitutes apostasy and is worthy of excommunication.  You don't think that the word "abnormal" that I used is appropriate?  The church certainly doesn't represent SSM as a normal behavior.  

[hope_for_things]

On 7/8/2016 at 4:23 PM, Mystery Meat said:

Polygamy doesn't change that. Brigham Young had multiple marriages - each of them between one man and one woman - not one marriage between one man and multiple women. There is a big difference. Marriage has always been and always will be one man and one woman.

Ha!  So all of Brigham's marriages were between one man and one woman.  HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Nice defense of polygamy there, this one had me laughing out loud!  LOL big time!  Brigham, the big supporter of traditional marriage.  

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ha!  So all of Brigham's marriages were between one man and one woman.  HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Nice defense of polygamy there, this one had me laughing out loud!  LOL big time!  Brigham, the big supporter of traditional marriage.  

I think the view that polygamy is somehow traditional marriage to be odd.  Brigham didn't just marry one woman at a time.  Sometimes he married one woman while also standing proxy while she was sealed to Joseph while her third husband stood as witness.  There was nothing traditional about plural marriage in Mormonism.  It shattered the concept of traditional to pieces. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the view that polygamy is somehow traditional marriage to be odd.  Brigham didn't just marry one woman at a time.  Sometimes he married one woman while also standing proxy while she was sealed to Joseph while her third husband stood as witness.  There was nothing traditional about plural marriage in Mormonism.  It shattered the concept of traditional to pieces. 

Yes, I completely agree, there was nothing traditional about it.  Also, if you're trying to say Brigham believed in one man and one woman marriage through a lame semantics argument then its hard to take that claim seriously.  People can make an argument that it was God authorized or God commanded, thats fine.  Just don't try and say it was considered traditional by any sense of the term, there isn't any ground to stand on that claim.  

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I completely agree, there was nothing traditional about it.  Also, if you're trying to say Brigham believed in one man and one woman marriage through a lame semantics argument then its hard to take that claim seriously.  People can make an argument that it was God authorized or God commanded, thats fine.  Just don't try and say it was considered traditional by any sense of the term, there isn't any ground to stand on that claim.  

Brigham's wives saw more of each other than they did of him.  Sister wives taking care of each other, supporting each other as a man and woman marriage often has, was typical.  That's not traditional.  Alright, i'm belaboring the point. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by stemelbow

[Mystery Meat]

I never once said that polygamy was like traditional marriage as we would call it today. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

[Mystery Meat]

For all of those who are essentially mocking what I said about Brigham Young's marriages all being one man and one woman, can ANY of you provide any support that would suggest that these marriages were actually just one? That the women were not only married to Brigham Young, but to each other. Very curious.

[Mystery Meat]

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I completely agree, there was nothing traditional about it.  Also, if you're trying to say Brigham believed in one man and one woman marriage through a lame semantics argument then its hard to take that claim seriously.  People can make an argument that it was God authorized or God commanded, thats fine.  Just don't try and say it was considered traditional by any sense of the term, there isn't any ground to stand on that claim.  

Please keep in mind, I pointed out that Brigham Young was married to each wife (not in a traditional sense as we would understand it using modern lingo) and not that all of these wives were part of one big marriage because inevitably stupid people try and compare polygamy to SSM. But the Lord's law throughout history (as it pertains to the appropriate parties for any one marriage) has always been one man and one woman. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

I also find it interesting, that you were the one who inserted the word "traditional" into this conversation. I never used it. Traditional marriage carries certain baggage with it now, thanks to the SSM debate, and I didn't use it intentionally. It was you who confused the issue by inserting it unnecessarily into the conversation.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I never once said that polygamy was like traditional marriage as we would call it today. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I played off of what hope_for_things quoted from you.  I didn't go back and get context.  But I spoke generally not intended to confront what you said, in particular.  Just saying, it'd be odd to call polygamy traditional marriage.  Not saying you'd say that. 

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

For all of those who are essentially mocking what I said about Brigham Young's marriages all being one man and one woman, can ANY of you provide any support that would suggest that these marriages were actually just one? That the women were not only married to Brigham Young, but to each other. Very curious.

I'm not sure what you're asking for.  Are you asking for someone to provide support that would suggest that BY's marriages were only between one man and one woman?  I'm not saying that.  I thought that's what you said.  I don't know what your second sentence refers to either.  When you say "women were not only married to Brigham Young" I agree.  Some were married to other men.  But the claim of to each other is interesting.  I'd agree in that they treated each other, at least in some cases, as if they were joined to each other, but I didn't know if the ceremony itself so sealed them in such a way.  Any links to help explain that? 

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Please keep in mind, I pointed out that Brigham Young was married to each wife (not in a traditional sense as we would understand it using modern lingo) and not that all of these wives were part of one big marriage because inevitably stupid people try and compare polygamy to SSM. But the Lord's law throughout history (as it pertains to the appropriate parties for any one marriage) has always been one man and one woman. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

In Brigham Young's case it was one man and 55 women. 

[Mystery Meat]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you're asking for.  Are you asking for someone to provide support that would suggest that BY's marriages were only between one man and one woman?  I'm not saying that.  I thought that's what you said.  I don't know what your second sentence refers to either.  When you say "women were not only married to Brigham Young" I agree.  Some were married to other men.  But the claim of to each other is interesting.  I'd agree in that they treated each other, at least in some cases, as if they were joined to each other, but I didn't know if the ceremony itself so sealed them in such a way.  Any links to help explain that? 

Sorry, my position is that each of Brigham Young's marriages (the actual sealing) were all between one man and one woman. I am not claiming that the marriage some how extended beyond that and that each wife of Brigham Young had a claim to another wife as an eternal companion any more that any of my brothers' or sisters' spouses have a claim to me or my wife. We are sealed through marriage, but I am not their husband nor do I have a marital claim to them any more than Brigham Young's wives were also each others' wives. Sorry for the confusion.

[Mystery Meat]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

In Brigham Young's case it was one man and 55 women. 

CFR that the 55 women were married to each other. Otherwise, my claim that each of Brigham Young's 55 marriages were between one man and one woman stands.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Mystery Meat